5 ms·

Does YugaByte still use the Raft and HybridTime implementations from Apache Kudu? If so, how relevant are these results for Kudu?

acubel23 8y ago
Yes, it does. At the core, the raft implementation is still based on kudu's. But, these areas have been worked on actively so the implementations might has diverged a little. May be worth looking through the individual issues to see what applies and what doesn't: https://github.com/YugaByte/yugabyte-db/projects/11 https://github.com/YugaByte/yugabyte-db/projects/11
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
kmuthukk 8y ago
I wanted to add a few details to the previous reply. While the Raft/HybridTime implementation has its roots in Apache Kudu the results will NOT be quite applicable to Kudu. Aside from the fact that the code base has evolved/diverged over the 3+ years, there are key/relevant areas (ones very relevant to these Jepsen tests) where YugaByte DB has added capabilities or follows a different design than Kudu. For example: -- Leader Leases: YugaByte DB doesn't use Raft consensus for reads. Instead, we have implemented "leader leases" to ensure safety in allowing reads to be served from a tablet's Raft leader. -- Distributed/Multi-Shard Transactions: YugaByte DB uses a home grown (https://docs.yugabyte.com/latest/architecture/transactions/transactional-io-path/ https://docs.yugabyte.com/latest/architecture/transactions/t...) protocol based on two-phase commit across multiple Raft groups. Capabilities like secondary indexes, multi-row updates use multi-shard transactions. -- Allowing online/dynamic Raft membership changes so that tablets can be moved (such as for load-balancing to new nodes). regards Kannan (Co-founder @ YugaByte)
- mpercy 8y ago
  FWIW, we implemented dynamic consensus membership change in Kudu way back in 2015 (https://github.com/apache/kudu/commit/535dae https://github.com/apache/kudu/commit/535dae) but presumably that was after the fork. We still haven't implemented leader leases or distributed transactions in Kudu though due to prioritizing other features. It's very cool that you have implemented those consistency features.
  - kmuthukk 8y ago
    hi @mpercy, Thanks for correcting me on the dynamic consensus membership change. Looks like the basic support was indeed there, but several important enhancements were needed (for correctness and usability). - To make the "online" piece of the membership change work correctly we added support for LEARNER (PRE VOTER) role (where the new member enters in a non-voting mode till it's caught up). https://github.com/YugaByte/yugabyte-db/commit/909d26e31ecd0ef0f87eb677961dcf238f9d7853 https://github.com/YugaByte/yugabyte-db/commit/909d26e31ecd0.... - Load Balancing (which uses the membership changes) is automatic. (https://github.com/YugaByte/yugabyte-db/commit/e4667eb7ec0e6b870eeb6a8cc34273fe1b9b576b https://github.com/YugaByte/yugabyte-db/commit/e4667eb7ec0e6...) - Remote bootstrap (due to membership changes) also has undergone substantial changes given that YugaByte DB uses a customize/extended version of RocksDB as the storage engine and does a tighter coupling of Raft with RocksDB storage engine. (https://github.com/YugaByte/yugabyte-db/blob/master/docs/extending-rocksdb.md https://github.com/YugaByte/yugabyte-db/blob/master/docs/ext...) - Dynamic Leader Balancing is also new-- it causes leadership to be proactively altered in a running system to ensure each node is the leader for a similar number of tablets. regards, Kannan
    - mpercy 8y ago
      Interesting. Just last year we implemented improved re-replication (https://github.com/apache/kudu/commit/79a255 https://github.com/apache/kudu/commit/79a255) which sounds very similar to what you did with LEARNER roles, and we added manually-triggered rebalancing (https://github.com/apache/kudu/commit/ccdcf6 https://github.com/apache/kudu/commit/ccdcf6 and https://kudu.apache.org/releases/1.8.0/docs/administration.html#rebalancer_tool https://kudu.apache.org/releases/1.8.0/docs/administration.h...). I'm curious if you did anything to prevent automatic rebalancing from being triggered at a "bad time" or have throttled it in some way, or whether moving large amounts of data between servers at arbitrary times was not a concern. I am also curious if you added some type of API using the LEARNER role to support a CDC-type of listener interface using consensus. By the way, we also recently added support for rack/location awareness in a series of patches including https://github.com/apache/kudu/commit/ebb285 https://github.com/apache/kudu/commit/ebb285 We should really start some threads on the dev lists to periodically share this type of information and merge things back and forth to avoid duplicating work where possible. I know the systems are pretty different at the catalog and storage layers but there are still many similarities.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

acubel23 8y ago

Yes, it does. At the core, the raft implementation is still based on kudu's. But, these areas have been worked on actively so the implementations might has diverged a little. May be worth looking through the individual issues to see what applies and what doesn't: https://github.com/YugaByte/yugabyte-db/projects/11 https://github.com/YugaByte/yugabyte-db/projects/11

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

kmuthukk 8y ago

I wanted to add a few details to the previous reply. While the Raft/HybridTime implementation has its roots in Apache Kudu the results will NOT be quite applicable to Kudu. Aside from the fact that the code base has evolved/diverged over the 3+ years, there are key/relevant areas (ones very relevant to these Jepsen tests) where YugaByte DB has added capabilities or follows a different design than Kudu. For example: -- Leader Leases: YugaByte DB doesn't use Raft consensus for reads. Instead, we have implemented "leader leases" to ensure safety in allowing reads to be served from a tablet's Raft leader. -- Distributed/Multi-Shard Transactions: YugaByte DB uses a home grown (https://docs.yugabyte.com/latest/architecture/transactions/transactional-io-path/ https://docs.yugabyte.com/latest/architecture/transactions/t...) protocol based on two-phase commit across multiple Raft groups. Capabilities like secondary indexes, multi-row updates use multi-shard transactions. -- Allowing online/dynamic Raft membership changes so that tablets can be moved (such as for load-balancing to new nodes). regards Kannan (Co-founder @ YugaByte)

mpercy 8y ago
FWIW, we implemented dynamic consensus membership change in Kudu way back in 2015 (https://github.com/apache/kudu/commit/535dae https://github.com/apache/kudu/commit/535dae) but presumably that was after the fork. We still haven't implemented leader leases or distributed transactions in Kudu though due to prioritizing other features. It's very cool that you have implemented those consistency features.
- kmuthukk 8y ago
  hi @mpercy, Thanks for correcting me on the dynamic consensus membership change. Looks like the basic support was indeed there, but several important enhancements were needed (for correctness and usability). - To make the "online" piece of the membership change work correctly we added support for LEARNER (PRE VOTER) role (where the new member enters in a non-voting mode till it's caught up). https://github.com/YugaByte/yugabyte-db/commit/909d26e31ecd0ef0f87eb677961dcf238f9d7853 https://github.com/YugaByte/yugabyte-db/commit/909d26e31ecd0.... - Load Balancing (which uses the membership changes) is automatic. (https://github.com/YugaByte/yugabyte-db/commit/e4667eb7ec0e6b870eeb6a8cc34273fe1b9b576b https://github.com/YugaByte/yugabyte-db/commit/e4667eb7ec0e6...) - Remote bootstrap (due to membership changes) also has undergone substantial changes given that YugaByte DB uses a customize/extended version of RocksDB as the storage engine and does a tighter coupling of Raft with RocksDB storage engine. (https://github.com/YugaByte/yugabyte-db/blob/master/docs/extending-rocksdb.md https://github.com/YugaByte/yugabyte-db/blob/master/docs/ext...) - Dynamic Leader Balancing is also new-- it causes leadership to be proactively altered in a running system to ensure each node is the leader for a similar number of tablets. regards, Kannan
  - mpercy 8y ago
    Interesting. Just last year we implemented improved re-replication (https://github.com/apache/kudu/commit/79a255 https://github.com/apache/kudu/commit/79a255) which sounds very similar to what you did with LEARNER roles, and we added manually-triggered rebalancing (https://github.com/apache/kudu/commit/ccdcf6 https://github.com/apache/kudu/commit/ccdcf6 and https://kudu.apache.org/releases/1.8.0/docs/administration.html#rebalancer_tool https://kudu.apache.org/releases/1.8.0/docs/administration.h...). I'm curious if you did anything to prevent automatic rebalancing from being triggered at a "bad time" or have throttled it in some way, or whether moving large amounts of data between servers at arbitrary times was not a concern. I am also curious if you added some type of API using the LEARNER role to support a CDC-type of listener interface using consensus. By the way, we also recently added support for rack/location awareness in a series of patches including https://github.com/apache/kudu/commit/ebb285 https://github.com/apache/kudu/commit/ebb285 We should really start some threads on the dev lists to periodically share this type of information and merge things back and forth to avoid duplicating work where possible. I know the systems are pretty different at the catalog and storage layers but there are still many similarities.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]